SCRUGGS 
Lord  Salisbury's  mistakes 


*.^^^AA.A^^^AhA^^^AA.AAAA.AAAA..l.^A.A.AA.^A.^A.A.Ai.A.A.t.^A.^^A^A.i.M.M.^^X^t.A.A.A^^ 


Lord  Salisbury's  Mistakes, 


By  WiLciAM  L.  Scruggs, 

Counsel  for  the  Venezuelan  Government 


f  Revised  EJItion.) 


McOii.T,  ,t    Wam.ack,   I^w   Printers,  Washington,  1).  (,'. 


DMVEltSilY  (n-  CAUKOHr 
SANTA  BARBARA 


LORD  SALISBURY'S  MISTAKES. 


In  his  official  note  of  the  26tli  of  November  last,  in- 
tended as  a  reply  to  Mr,  Olney's  of  the  20th  of  July, 
Lord  Salisbury  makes  some  very  surprising  statements 
relative  to  the  boundary  dispute  with  Venezuela,  which, 
in  all  probability,  he  would  not  repeat  now ;  but  since 
they  remain  without  qualification  or  amendment,  seem 
to  demand  some  notice. 

He  states,  for  instance,  that  the  boundary  dispute  "did 
not,  in  fact,  commence  till  after  the  year  1840 ; "  that 
"  the  title  of  Great  Britain  to  the  territory  in  question  is 
derived,  in  the  first  place,  from  conquest  and  military 
occupation  of  the  Dutch  settlements  in  1796  ; "  and  that 
"  both  on  this  occasion,  and  at  the  time  of  a  previous 
occupation  of  those  settlements  in  1781,  the  British 
authorities  marked  the  western  boundary  of  their  pos- 
sessions as  beginning  some  distance  up  the  Orinoco 
beyond  Point  Barima,  in  accordance  with  the  limits 
claimed  and  actually  held  by  the  Dutch." 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  point  out  that  the  dispute 
began  at  a  much  earlier  date  than  1840.  In  the  j'^ear 
1822,  the  Colombian  Confederation,  of  which  Venezuela 
was  then  a  constituent  member,  instructed  its  Minister 
at  London  to  inform  the  British  Government  that  any 
English  settlers  west  of  the  Esequibo,  would  be  expected 
either  to  retire  or  to  place  themselves  under  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Colombian  authorities.  Circumstances  soon 
arose  which  made  it  impossible,  for  the  time  being,  to 


carry  out  these  instructions,  but  that  did  not  nuUify 
them  nor  change  their  import.  The  manifest  object  was 
to  claim,  as  the  successor  in  title  of  Spain,  all  territory 
west  of  the  Esequibo,  which  had  always  been  regarded 
as  the  legal  boundary  between  Spain  and  Dutch  Guay- 
ana.  The  dispute  arose  again  in  1836,  as  appears  from 
the  official  note  of  the  British  Minister  in  Caracas,  dated 
May  14th  of  that  year,  addressed  to  the  Venezuelan  Gov- 
ernment. Moreover,  it  is  very  well  known  that,  even  as 
late  as  1836,  England's  extreme  claim,  as  the  successor 
in  title  of  Holland,  did  not  extend  beyond  Cape  Nassau 
and  the  Pumaron  River. 

It  is  true  that  what  was  known  as  Dutch  Guayana 
had  been  previously  the  property  of  the  Crown  of  Eng- 
land, and  that  the  English  had  made  some  settlements 
on  the  Surinam  River.  But  in  the  time  of  Charles  II. 
these  settlements  were  captured  and  held  by  the  Dutch 
in  retaliation  for  the  British  capture  and  occupancy  of 
the  Dutch  settlements  in  North  America ;  and  in  Febru- 
ary, 1674,  the  Dutch  obtained  a  cession  of  all  the  British 
possessions  in  Guayana  in  exchange  for  those  of  Holland 
in  North  America.  This,  of  course,  left  England  without 
any  claim  to  territor}^  in  Dutch  Guayana,  which  then,  as 
now,  was  limited  to  the  settlements  ceded  to  Holland  b}'^ 
Spain  by  the  treaty  of  Munster  in  1648. 

The  temporary  military  occupations  of  these  settle- 
ments by  the  British  in  1781  and  1796,  to  which  Lord 
Salisbury  refers,  certainly  conveyed  no  permanent  title. 
This  appears  from  subsequent  treaties  between  the  two 
countries,  and  more  particularly  from  the  treaty  of 
Amiens,  of  1802.     Least  of  all  could  such  temporary 


occupancy  have  enlarged  the  area  of  Dutch  Guayana. 
For,  by  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  of  1713,  England  cove- 
nanted to  "  aid  the  Spaniards  to  recover  the  ancient 
limits  of  their  dominions  "  in  America  "  as  they  stood  in 
the  time  of  the  Catholic  King  Charles  II. ; "  that  is  to 
say,  as  they  stood  in  1700,  when  Cliarles  II.  died.  It  is 
manifest,  from  the  official  correspondence  and  maps  of 
that  period,  that  the  western  boundary  between  Spain 
and  Dutch  Guayana  was  then  the  River  Esequibo, 
which  continued  to  be  regarded  as  the  legal  boundary 
up  to  1791.  This  is  manifest  from  tiie  terms  of  the 
treaty  of  Aranjuez  of  that  year,  and  also  by  the  events 
and  official  correspondence  which  preceded  and  led  to 
that  compact. 

That  Dutch  Guayana  was  tlien  limited  to  the  four 
"establishments"  or  settlements  of  Surinam,  Demerara, 
Berbice,  and  Esequibo,  scarcely  needs  to  be  pointed  out; 
and  all  geographers  agree  that  the  province  of  Berbice 
extended  from  the  Surinam  to  the  Berbice  River,  that 
of  Demerara  from  the  Berbice  to  the  Demerara  River, 
and  that  of  Esequibo  from  the  Demerara  to  the  Ese- 
quibo River. 

That  the  Dutch  did  make,  in  violation  of  the  treaty  of 
1648,  spasmodic  attempts  to  extend  their  settlements  be- 
yond the  Esequibo,  is  not  denied.  They  even  established 
two  temporary  fortifications  on  the  left  bank  of  the 
Pumaron,  near  its  mouth,  and  attempted  to  found  settle- 
ments near  Cape  Nassau.  But  these  aggressions  were 
always  repelled  by  the  Spaniards ;  and,  in  point  of  fact, 
those  settlements,  and  also  the  fortifications  on  the 
Pumaron,  had  been  abandoned  by  the  Dutch  in  1783,  as 


appears  from  the  official  report  of  Don  Jose  Felipe  de 
Inciarte  of  December  of  that  year.  And  this  is  confirmed 
by  Dutch  testimony  of  the  most  unimpeachable  character, 
as  may  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  note  of  a  Dutch  offi- 
cial, Mr,  Six,  of  1794,  addressed  to  the  Spanish  Minister 
in  Holland. 

In  1803  the  three  settlements  or  colonies  of  Esequibo, 
Berbice,  and  Demerara  capitulated  successively  to  the 
English,  who,  later  on,  held  military  possession  of  the 
whole  of  Dutch  Guayana.  But  by  the  final  treaty  of 
peace,  which  followed  in  1814,  England  agreed  to  restore 
to  Holland,  within  the  period  of  three  months,  all  "  the 
colonies,  factories,  and  establishments  "  therein,  except 
only  the  three  "  settlements  of  Demerara,  Esequibo,  and 
Berbice."  These  were  to  be  disposed  of  by  a  "  Supple- 
mentary Convention,"  to  be  negotiated  "  especially  with 
reference  to  the  provisions  contained  in  the  Vlth  and 
IXth  articles  of  the  treaty  of  peace  "  of  May,  1814.  By 
that  "  Supplementary  Convention,"  which  is  dated  Au- 
gust 13, 1814,  Holland,  in  consideration  of  certain  sums  of 
money,  to  be  advanced  by  England  under  the  conditions 
therein  specified,  ceded  to  England  "  in  full  sovereignty  " 
the  three  "  settlements  "  named,  but  no  more. 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  source,  and  the  only  legitimate 
source,  of  England's  present  claim  to  territory  in  Guay- 
ana. That  it  is  expressly  limited  to  the  three  "  settle- 
ments "  named,  as  they  stood  on  the  13th  of  August, 
1814,  is  manifest.  England  is  therefore  justly  entitleli, 
as  the  successor  of  Holland,  to  all  the  territory  within 
the  then  recognized  limits  of  those  three  "  settlements," 
but  not  to  one  foot  of  ground  beyond.     Holland  never 


had  a  fifth  "  settlement "  or  colony  between  the  Esequibo 
and  the  Orinoco ;  but  even  if  slie  had,  certainly  no  part 
of  it  was  ceded  to  England  by  the  Supplementary  Con- 
vention of  August  13,1814.  Nor  has  there  ever  been 
any  such  concession  since,  either  by  Holland,  Spain, 
Colombia,  or  Venezuela.  Nor  could  there  have  been 
any  such  cession  by  the  native  Indian  occupants,  for  the 
ultimate  dominion  of  the  soil  could  not  have  been  con- 
veyed by  them,  even  had  they  attempted  it,  which  no- 
where appears. 

*  In  view  of  these  facts,  so  easy  of  verification,  it  seems 
almost  incredible  that  Lord  Salisbury  should  maintain 
that  Mr.  (afterwards  Sir  Robert)  Schomburgk,  "  did  not 
discover  or  invent  any  new  boundaries  "  in  making  out 
his  capricious  divisional  line  of  1840.  Schomburgk  did 
not  himself  take  this  view  of  the  case,  as  appears  from  his 
book  published  in  London  in  that  year.  For  he  therein 
says  he  followed,  not  the  historic  limits,  but  those  "  which 
nature  prescribed  by  its  rivers  and  mountains."  He  as- 
sumed English  possession  of  the  mouth  of  the  Esequibo, 
and  then  by  a  contested  rule,  seldom  attempted  to  be 
ap[)lied,  claimed  for  England  the  entire  watershed  of  that 
river.  He  even  went  beyond  this,  and  drew  a  tentative 
line  including  the  Guaima  and  Amacura  rivers,  both  of 
which  are  in  the  eastern  watershed  of  the  Orinoco.  That 
his  capricious  line  was  promptly  disclaimed  by  the  British 
Cabinet,  who  ordered  its  obliteration  by  the  Demerara 
Colonial  Government,  and  that  it  was  in  fact  obliterated, 
and  a  new  one  proposed  beginning  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Moroco  River,  are  facts  too  well  known  to  admit  of  con- 
troversy. 


6 

And  yet  Lord  Salisbury  makes  the  astonishing  state- 
ment that  "  while  Mr.  Schomburgk  was  engaged  in  this 
survey,  the  Venezuelan  Minister  at  London  had  urged 
Her  Majesty's  Government  to  enter  into  a  Treaty  of 
Limits;"  and  that  "as  soon  as  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment were' in  possession  of  Mr.  Schomburgk's  reports, 
the  Venezuelan  Minister  was  informed  that  they  were  in 
a  position  to  commence  negotiations."  Now,  the  truth  is, 
Dr.  Fortique,  the  Venezuelan  Minister  at  London,  acting 
under  specific  instructions  i'roni  his  Government,  made 
it  a  condition  precedent  to  any  negotiation  of  boundary 
that  the  so-called  "Schomburgk  line"  be  not  only  dis- 
claimed but  obliterate^],  although  it  was  then  claimed 
by  Lord  Aberdeen  to  represent  nothing  more  than  the 
extreme  limit  of  England's  pretension,  and  not,  as  now, 
an  absolute  boundary.  It  was  not  till  after  Lord  Aber- 
deen had  disclaimed  the  line,  and  had  given  assurances 
that  it  would  be  promptly  obliterated,  that  negotiations 
were  commenced.  Then  it  was  that  the  Venezuelan 
Minister  opened  negotiations  and  ro-asserted  theEsequibo 
Riveras  the  rightful  boundary,  and  that  Lord  Aberdeen 
proposed  another  divisional  line  beginning  near  the 
mouth  of  the  Moroco.  It  is  true,  as  Lord  Salisbury  says, 
that  in  making  this  proposition  Lord  Aberdeen  imposed 
two  conditions,  namely,  that  Venezuela  would  agree  not 
to  alienate  any  portion  of  the  remaining  territory  to  a 
third  power,  and  not  to  maltreat  the  Indian  occupants. 
But  he  omits  to  state  that  Lortl  Aberdeen  refused  to  make 
these  conditions  mutual ;  and  that  it  was  pending  these 
negotiations  that  he  orally  pro{)Osed  arbitration,  to  which 
"  no  immediate  answer"  appears  to  have  been  given  by 
Venezuela. 


The  agreement  of  1850,  to  which  Lord  Salisbury  refers, 
followed  ill  due  course,  whereby  both  parties  were  obli- 
gated not  to  occupy  or  attempt  to  occupy  any  portion  of 
the  then  unoccupied  territory  in  dispute  till  after  the 
question  of  boundary  siiould  be  finally  settled.  That 
the  territor}'  then  in  dispute  did  not  extend  to  the 
Orinoco,  or  to  anywhere  near  it,  is  manifest  from  the 
fact  that  the  British  Government  had  more  than  once, 
and  ill  more  forms  than  one,  distinctly  recognized  Vene- 
zuela's right  of  domain  and  jurisdiction,  not  only  at  the 
Orinoco  delta,  over  Point  Barima,  and  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Amacura,  but  even  as  far  eastward  as  the  Moroco 
River.  Indeed,  as  late  as  June,  1887,  more  than  a  whole 
year  after  England  had  taken  forcible  possession  of  Point 
Barima  and  fortified  the  mouth  of  the  Amacura,  the 
Governor  of  Demerara  declared  officially,  before  the 
Colonial  Assembly,  that  England  would  not  guarantee 
any  protection  or  compensation  to  British  settlers  in  that 
vicinity  in  case  the  boundary  question  should  be  decided 
in  favor  of  Venezuela. 

Each  party  now  accuses  the  other  of  having  violated 
the  agreement  of  1850.  But  even  if  both  accusations 
were  true,  it  w^ould  not  be  material  to  the  real  issue 
involved  in  the  boundary  dispute.  For  it  will  hardly 
be  contended  by  either  party  that  such  de  facto  occupancy 
conveys  legal  title. 

But  that  England  did  violate  the  Agreement  is  con- 
clusively shown  by  Lord  Salisbury's  own  statements.  He 
admits  that  his  government  re-established  the  discarded 
Schomburgk  line,  and  took  forcible  possession  of  all  the 
territory  within  it.  This  was  clearly  in  violation  of  the 
Agreement  of  1850.     He  attempts  to  justify  this  by  alleg- 


8 

ing,  first,  that  the  disavowal  and  obliterating  of  that  line 
by  Lord  Aberdeen  in  1842  was  a  concession  "  made  on 
the  distinct  understanding  that  Great  Britain  did  not 
thereby  in  any  way  abandon  her  claim  to  that  position  ;  " 
and,  second,  that  Venezuela  had  previously  violated  the 
Agreement  by  establishing  new  settlements,  and  by 
granting  mining  concessions,  within  the  disputed  terri- 
tory. 

Both  these  statements  are  incorrect.  As  to  the  first, 
Lord  Aberdeen's  note  of  January  31,  1842,  will  not  bear 
the  construction  here  placed  upon  it.  His  exact  words 
were  these :  "  Her  Majesty's  Government  must  not  be 
understood  to  abandon  any  portion  of  the  rights  of  Great 
Britain  over  the  territory  which  was  formerly  held  by 
the  Dutch  in  Guiana."  Here  is  a  wide  distinction  be- 
tween the  reservation  of  a  capricious  frontier  line  which 
had  just  been  specifically  and  unconditionally  aban- 
doned, and  a  general  reservation  of  rights  to  territory 
be  it  much  or  little,  that  "  was  formerly  held  by  the 
Dutch  in  Guiana."  As  to  the  second  allegation,  Vene- 
zuela believed,  on  just  grounds,  that  the  disputed  terri- 
tory contemplated  by  the  Agreement  of  1850  was,  at  the 
utmost,  that  comprised  between  the  Moroco  and  the 
Esequibo  rivers.  Consequently,  she  has  always  insisted, 
as  she  still  insists,  that  the  mining  concessions  of  which 
Lord  Salisbury  complains,  were  never  intended  to  in- 
clude, and  did  not  in  fact  include,  any  portion  of  the 
territory  then  in  dispute ;  while  a  glance  at  any  good 
map  of  the  country  will  show  that  the  new  settlement  or 
township  of  Nueva  Providencia,  of  which  Lord  Salisbury 
complains,  is  wholly  beyond  even  the  repudiated  Schom- 


9 

burgk  line.  Besides,  it  is  very  generally  understood 
that  not  one  of  the  concessions  referred  to  ever  amounted 
to  anything.  They  all  lapsed  by  limitation  before  the 
conditions  were  complied  witli. 

Again,  Lord  Salisbury  says :  "  The  claim  put  forth  by 
Venezuela,"  to  all  the  territory  west  of  the  Esequibo, 
"would  involve  the  surrender  of  a  province  now  inhab- 
ited by  40,000  British  subjects,"  and  which  "  has  been 
in  the  uninterrupted  possession  of  Holland  and  Great 
Britain  successively  for  two  centuries.  He  makes  this 
statement  in  the  very  face  of  the  generally  accepted  his- 
torical fact  that  Holland  never  at  any  time  had  "  unin- 
terrupted possession  "  of  a  single  foot  of  ground  west  of 
the  Esequibo,  nor  even  any  temporary  establishments 
west  of  the  Moroco  River;  while  by  the  public  treaties, 
already  cited,  England's  present  claim  is  distinctly  lim- 
ited to  the  three  Dutch  settlements  of  Demerara,  Berbice, 
and  Esequibo,  as  those  settlements  stood  in  1814.  And 
surely  he  would  not  be  understood  as  contending  that 
mere  occupancy,  in  time  of  peace,  of  disputed  territory 
after  the  dispute  had  arisen,  can  invest  title  b}'  prescrip- 
tion ;  or  that  because  there  are  "  40,000  British  subjects  " 
west  of  the  Esequibo,  therefore  the  country  they  inhabit 
is  necessarily  British  territory. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  it  is  very  well  known 
that  there  are  no  "  40,000  British  subjects  "  settled  west 
of  the  Esequibo.  There  are  not  the  half  of  that  number. 
It  is  extreme!}'  doubtful  whether  there  are  as  many  as 
10,000.  According  to  the  latest  and  most  reliable  census 
reports,  the  population  of  the  whole  of  British  Guayana 
hardly  exceeds  300,000.     Of  these  over  100,000  are  ne- 


10 

groes,  most  of  whom  are  aliens  from  the  West  India 
islands,  and  comparatively  few  of  them  can  be  said  to 
have  any  settled  habitation.  Fully  150,000  more  are 
East  Indian  and  Chinese  coolies,  who  were  brought  out 
from  Calcutta  and  Canton  and  elsewhere  in  India  and 
China  under  five  years  indenture,  and  are,  at  be>t,  little 
more  than  slaves.  The  entire  white  population  of  the 
whole  of  British  Guayana  is  probably  less  than  3,000,  and 
the  voting  population  less  than  2,400. 

West  of  the  Esequibo  there  is  not  a  single  British 
settlement  that  was  not  made  against  the  oft-rej)eated 
remonstrances  and  formal  protests  of  the  Colombian  and 
Venezuelan  authorities.  Those  between  the  Pumaron 
and  Moroco  rivers,  as  also  those  on  the  Cuyuni,  are  of 
comparatively  recent  origin.  It  is  believed  that  not  one 
of  them  existed  as  late  as  1850,  and  certainly  not  one  of 
them  has  ever  had  even  the  |)assive  concurrence  of 
Venezuela.  Those  west  of  the  Moroco  and  on  the  eastern 
estuary  of  the  Orinoco  are  of  still  later  origin.  Certainly 
not  one  of  them  existed  twenty  years  ago,  while  those  at 
Barima  Point,  on  the  Brazo  Barima,  on  the  Guaima,  and 
at  the  mouth  of  tlie  Amacura  are  less  than  a  dozen 
years  old. 

Lord  Salisbury's  allusion  to  Venezuela  as  "  the  self- 
constituted  inheritor  of  Spain,"  is  still  more  unfortunate. 
For  surely,  at  this  late  day,  he  would  not  be  understood 
as  contesting  the  long-established  rule — repeatedly  ap- 
plied by  the  United  States,  and  as  repeatedly  recognized 
by  Great  Britain — that  "  when  a  European  colony  or 
dependency  in  America  becomes  independent,  it  suc- 
ceeds, ipso  facto,  to  the  territorial  limits  of  the  colony  or 


11 

dependency  as  they  stood  in  the  hands  of  the  parent 
country."  And  it  would  be  quite  as  absurd  to  assume 
that  he  now  proposes  to  make  Venezuela  the  first  and 
only  excei)tion  to  that  rule  three  quarters  of  a  century 
after  the  independence  of  the  country  has  been  formally 
recognized  by  the  powers  of  the  world. 

He  clearly  misapprehends  the  meaning  of  the  declara- 
tions in  the  Venezuelan  constitution,  and  of  similar  dec- 
larations in  the  fundamental  laws  of  the  old  Colombian 
Union,  namely,  that  "the  territory  of  the  Republic  com- 
prises all  that  which,  previously  to  the  political  changes  of 
1810,  was  denominated  the  Captaincy  General  of  Vene- 
zuela." Such  declarations  by  "  a  newly  constituted  state  " 
he  says,  "  can  have  no  valid  force  as  against  international 
arrangements  previously  concluded  by  the  nation  from 
which  it  has  separated  itself."  Assuredly  not ;  nobody 
has  ever  contended  that  it  can.  What  is  contended  for 
is,  that  the  limits  of  the  territory  comprised  in  the. Cap- 
taincy General  of  Venezuela,  as  tiiey  stood  in  1810,  are 
to-day  tlie  rightful  limits  of  the  territory  of  the  Republic 
as  the  legitimate  inheritor  of  Spain.  In  other  words, 
the  western  frontier  boundary  between  Spanish  and 
Dutch  Guayana  in  1810,  wherever  that  was,  is  undoubt- 
edly the  {(resent  rightful  boundary  between  Venezuela 
and  British  Guayana. 

Lord  Salisbury  himself  seems  to  admit  this.  For,  fur- 
ther on  in  his  dispatch,  he  says  "  the  present  difficulty 
would  never  have  arisen  if  the  Government  of  Vene- 
zuela had  been  content  to  claim  only  those  territories 
which  could  be  i)roved  or  even  reasonably  asserted  to  have 
been  practically  in  the  possession  and  under  the  effective 


12 

jurisdiction  of  tlie  Captaincy  General  of  Venezuela."  It 
is  denied  that  Venezuela  has  ever,  either  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, set  up  any  claim  beyond  this.  But  let  us  waive 
that  point  and  i)roceed  to  narrow  the  issue  down  to  the 
single  proposition  here  intimated.  Tlie  terms  "  proved," 
"reasonably  asserted,"  "  practically  in  possession,"  and, 
"  effective  jurisdiction  "  become  pivotal  factors,  and  must 
apply  with  equal  force  to  the  case  of  both  contestants  ; 
for  it  is  indeed  a  bad  rule  that  will  not  work  both  ways. 
It  is  theiefore  just  as  incumbent  upon  Great  Britain  to 
prove  "  practical  possession,"  and  "  effective  jurisdiction  " 
by  Holland  as  it  is  upon  Venezuela  to  j^rove  like  condi- 
tions with  resp3ct  to  Spain.  Upon  this  point  there  can 
be  no  room  for  disagreement. 

The  whole  question,  then,  as  thus  limited,  turns  exclu- 
sively upon  simple  and  readily  ascertainable  historical 
facts.  But  as  to  the  verity  of  those  facts,  the  i)arties  in 
interest  have  thus  far  been  unable  to  agree.  Hence 
it  is  a  question  very  properly  referable  to  a  joint  com- 
mission or  to  outside  friendly  arbitration.  And  this  is 
all  that  Venezuela  asks.  Is  Great  Britain  now  ready,  as 
she  was  in  1844,  and  again  in  1885,  to  join  issue  on  this 
single  point?  If  so,  a  settlement  is  already  in  sight.  It 
only  remains  to  agree  upon  the  details. 

True,  Lord  Salisbury  says  the  agreement  of  May,  1885, 
t^)  which  I  refer, ''  had  reference  to  future  disputes  only  ;  " 
and  that  "  Her  Majesty's  Government  have  always  in- 
sisted on  a  separate  discussion  of  the  frontier  question, 
and  have  considered  its  settlement  to  be  a  necessary  pre- 
liminary to  other  arrangements."  But  this,  aside  from 
being  at  variance  with  the  facts,  involves  a  contradiction 


13 

in  terms.  If  "  Her  Majesty's  Government  have  ahvays 
considered  "  a  settlement  of  the  boundary  question  "  to 
be  a  necessary  preliminary  to  other  arrangements,"  why 
did  Her  Majesty's  Government  agree  to  a  draft  of  treaty 
in  advance  of  such  a  preliminary  settlement? 

The  fact  is,  however,  that  liis  lordship's  statement  is 
incorrect.  It  is  supported  neither  by  the  draft  treaty  of 
1885,  nor  by  the  official  notes  and  protocols  which  {)re- 
ceded  and  led  up  to  it.  The  agreement  to  arbitrate  con- 
templates not  "  future  disputes  only,"  but  such  as  should 
arise  in  the  negotiations  for  the  settlement  of  this  iden- 
tical boundary  question.  Article  XV,  as  finally  agreed 
to  by  Earl  Granville,  states,  in  so  many  words,  that  "If 
there  shall  arise  a7iy  differences  which  can  not  be  ad- 
justed by  the  usual  means  of  friendly  negotiation,  the  two 
contracting  parties  agree  to  submit  the  decision  of  all 
such  differences  to  the  arbitration  of  a  third  power,  or  of 
the  several  powers,  in  amity  with  both,  and  that  the 
result  of  such  arbitration  shall  be  binding  upon  both 
governments."  Surely,  no  construction  is  necessary  here 
to  show  that  the  terms  "  any  differences  "  and  "  all  such 
differences  "  contemplated  any  and  all  differences  that 
should  arise  in  the  process  of  "  friendly  negotiation  "  for 
the  settlement  of  the  boundary  question.  Indeed,  it  is 
very  well  known  that  the  differences  and  irritations 
growing  out  of  that  long  pending  negotiation  were  the 
prime  occasion,  if  not  the  direct  cause  of  the  proposed 
treaty ;  and  it  hardly  needs  to  be  pointed  out  that  "  any 
differences  "  then  thought  of  as  present,  would,  if  con- 
tinued unsettled,  become  "  future "  differences  and  be 
properly  described  as  such.     Moreover,  if  there  could  be 


14 

any  doubt  on  this  point  it  would  be  entirely  removed  by 
the  notes  and  protocols  of  the  two  plenipotentiaries — 
General  Guzman  Blanco  and  Earl  Granville — in  which 
it  was  steadily  insisted  on  the  one  hand,  and  finally  con- 
sented to  on  the  other,  that  the  provision  for  general 
arbitration  in  article  XV  of  tlie  draft  treaty  should  in- 
clude all  differences  respecting  this  very  boundary  dis- 
pute. Thus,  in  his  final  note  of  May  15,  1885,  trans- 
mitting the  revised  draft,  Earl  Granville  says,  in  so  many 
words,  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  ''  further  agree 
that  the  understanding  to  refer  diflerences  to  arbitration 
shall  include  all  differences  which  may  arise  between  the 
contracting  parties,  and  not  those  only  which  arise  on 
the  interpretation  of  the  treaty,"  as  he  had  previously 
insisted. 

Even  Lord  Salisbury  himself  must  have  understood 
the  agreement  in  this  sense  when  he  repudiated  it  just 
seventy-two  days  later.  In  his  note  to  General  Blanco, 
dated  July  27,  1885,  he  says :  "  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment are  unable  to  concur  in  the  assent  given  by  their 
predecessors  in  office  to  the  general  arbitration  article 
proposed  by  Venezuela."  Why?  Because,  to  again 
quote  his  exact  words,  "  questions  might  arise,  such  as 
those  involving  the  title  of  the  British  Crown  to  territory 
or  other  sovereign  rights  "  which  "  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment could  not  pledge  themselves  beforehand  to  refer  to 
arbitration." 

This  language,  taken  in  connection  with  the  occasion 
which  called  it  forth,  can  have  but  one  meaning.  Lord 
Salisbury  clearly  understood  that  Article  XV  of  the 
draft  treaty,  as  it  had  been  agreed  to  by  his  predecessor, 


15 

did  provide,  in  a  most  unmistakable  manner,  for  the  ref- 
erence to  arbitration  of  "  all  differences  "  growing  out  of 
the  long  standing  and  still  unsettled  boundary  dispute  ; 
and  for  that  reason  he  repudiated  it.  But  for  that  un- 
fortunate (I  will  not  say  hasty  and  inconsiderate)  action, 
the  probabilities  ali  are  that  the  boundary  dispute  would 
have  been  amicably  settled  long  ago. 

William  L.  Scruggs, 
Counsel  fcn^  the  Venezuelan  Government. 


THE  LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 

STACK  COLLECTION 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


0m-8,'65(F6447s4)9482 


Syracuse,  n.    t . 
Stockton,  Colif. 


IIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillllllllll 
3  1205  02576  0123 


AA    000  925  616    5 


